Friday, February 27, 2009

The Experience of World War I

World War I was an unprecedented conflict in many ways. It involved much of the globe, though the centers of major fighting were in Europe and the Middle East. It showed the power of industrial society and organization to deepen conflict, causing immense causalities and also extensive economic and political disruption. And it was an agonizing human experience.
The two documents I would like you to read deal with the military experience in the trenches shared by all the combatants (you can read both by clicking here). The first document, from a memoir by the Austrian musician Fritz Kreisler, offers an overview of the early stages, suggesting initial excitement, followed by deadening conflict. Kreisler also notes the confusing impact on memory itself.

The second document is from the war’s most famous novel, All Quiet on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque. Remarque had served in the German army. He wrote vividly about the nature of trench warfare and the physical and mental burdens it imposed.

The war permanently changed Europe’s position in the world and greatly affected European politics—leading, for example, to the rise of fascism and Nazism. It also colored the life of a whole generation that found their expectations and rhythms totally shattered. The analytical challenge is to recapture this experience, at least in part, and discuss how it related to the larger changes the war produced.

After you have finished reading both documents, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What was the mood at the outset of the war, and what caused it? What were the main features of trench warfare for the troops involved? What would happen to people who managed to live through this experience? What makes Remarque’s writing so powerful? Why would people want to read a war novel of this sort? What was new about warfare as Remarque and Kreisler describe it? What were the wider implications of the fighting, for example for the political values of veterans after the war had ended? Can you see connections with some of the new political and cultural movements of the 1920s? Your thoughts…

Twenty-four Hours on the Western Front

Until 1914 Henry S. Clapham had led a conventional life, notably lacking in adventure or excitement. Born in 1875 in the town of Hull, he graduated from Queen’s College in Taunton, a boarding school for the sons of well-to-do families. After clerking in a law office, he married and began a career as a solicitor in London. His favorite entertainment was the card game bridge. In the fall of 1914, however, he answered the call to enlist and by January 1915 was a soldier in the British army fighting to hold back the Germans in northern Belgium. He fought there until October 1915, when a hand wound made him unfit for further service. On his return to England he resumed his career as a lawyer and, like many other returning soldiers, prepared his diary notes for publication as a book, which appeared in 1917 with the title Mud and Khaki- Memoirs of an Incomplete Soldier. It went through several printings and was republished in 1930 (you can read excerpts from it by clicking here).

Clapham’s book describes his experiences fighting in and around the northern Belgian city of Ypres, a commercial city of some 200,000 in the low, wet, largely unforested region that abuts the English Channel. It was the site of three major battles, one in the fall of 1914, another in 1915, and the last and bloodiest in 1917. Clapham fought in the so-called Second Battle of Ypres, which began in April 1915 when General Erich von Falkenhayn ordered a German attack on the entrenched English, Canadian, French, and French colonial troops to firm up German lines and divert allied troops form an anticipated offensive further to the south. After the Germans abandoned their major offensive in late May, fighting continued in the region, as Clapham’s memoir clearly shows.

The Second Battle of Ypres saw the introduction of poison gas on the Western Front. Chlorine gas, a product of the German dyestuff industry and developed by the giant German chemical company IG Farben, could be released from cylinders or delivered by artillery shells. It stimulated the lungs to produce fluid, causing the victim to drown. Thousands of soldiers around Ypres died as a result of German gas attacks, but the effectiveness of the new weapon diminished when soldiers were supplied with respirators, or gas masks, and learned that holding a wet (often urine-soaked) handkerchief over one’s nose and mouth provided some protection. Such countermeasures stimulated both sides to develop other types of poison gas, including phosgene, which causes asphyxiation, and mustard gas, which causes severe blistering.

After reading excerpts from Clapham’s account, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: As far as can be determined by Clapham’s account, what were the actual results of the one day of fighting he describes? What aspects of the fighting did Clapham and the other men find most unnerving? Wars inevitably cause immense human suffering. But the suffering in World War I for soldiers and civilians alike was especially traumatic and unbearable. What is there in Clapham’s account that may explain this phenomenon? Your thoughts…

Thursday, February 26, 2009

The Romance of War

When the soldiers marched off to war in the summer of 1914, crowds cheered, young men rushed to enlist, and politicians promised that “the boys would be home by Christmas.” Without having experienced a general war since the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 and with little thought to the millions of causalities in the American Civil War, Europeans saw the war as a glorious adventure—an opportunity to fight for the flag or Kaiser or queen, to wear splendid uniforms, and to win glory in battles that would be decided by élan, spirit, and bravery. The war they fought was nothing like the war they imagined, and the disparity between expectations and reality was one of many reasons why the four-year struggle was fraught with such disillusionment and bitterness.

The four illustrations I would like you to study (you can see all four by clicking here) portray the positive attitudes toward the war that all belligerents shared at the outset and that governments sought to perpetuate as the war dragged on. The first, entitled The Departure, shows a German troop train departing for the battle front in late summer 1914. The work of B. Hennerberg, an artist originally from Sweden, it originally appeared in the German periodical Simplicissimus in August 1914. That Simplicissimus would publish such an illustration indicates the depth of the nationalist emotions the war generated. Noted before the war for its irreverent satire and criticism of German militarism, Simplicissimus, once the fighting started, lent its full support to the war effort.

The second illustration is one of a series of war-related cards that the Mitchell Tobacco Company included in its packs of Golden Dawn Cigarettes in 1914 and early 1915. It shows a sergeant offering smokes to the soldiers under his command before battle. Tobacco advertising with military themes reached a saturation point in England during the war years.

An Australian recruitment poster issued in 1915 serves as the third illustration. Although Australia, like Canada, had assumed authority over its own internal affairs by the time the war started, its foreign policy was still controlled by Great Britain. Hence when Great Britain went to war, so did Australia. The Australian parliament refused to approve conscription, however, so the government had to work hard to encourage volunteers. This particular poster appeared at a time when Australian troops were heavily involved in the Gallipoli campaign, the allied effort to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war. Directing its message to the many young men who were members of sports clubs, it promised them an opportunity to enlist in a battalion made up entirely of fellow sportsmen. Such battalions had already been formed in England.

The fourth poster was produced and distributed by the newly formed British Ministry of Munitions in early 1917 to encourage women to accept jobs in the munitions industry. This was just one example of the broad government attempt from 1915 onward to enlist women in the war effort as medical workers, police, agricultural workers, porters, drivers, foresters, members of the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps, and, most important, factory laborers. This particular poster shows a young and attractive English woman offering a jaunty salute to a passing soldier as she arrives for work. During the war approximately 300 “munitionettes” were killed in explosions or from chemical-related sicknesses. Women who worked with TNT came to be known as “canaries” because of the yellow color of their skin. Despite such hazards and relatively low pay, approximately 950,000 women were working in munitions factories by war’s end.

After studying all four illustrations, I would like you all to consider and discuss the following: What message about the war does each of the four illustrations seek to convey? In what specific ways does each poster romanticize the life of a solder or female munitions worker? What impression of battle does the English tobacco card communicate? What does a comparison of Hennerberg’s painting and the English poster of the munitions worker suggest about changing views of women’s role during the war and in society at large? Your thoughts…

The German Army Marches Through Brussels

In August 1914, Europe went to war. The main rivals were Great Britain, France, and Russia versus Germany and Austria-Hungary. One nation after another declared war, and even nations that had been guaranteed neutrality, like Belgium, were drawn into the conflict. When the Belgian government refused to let German troops pass through its country, Germany invaded. The eyewitness account that I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here; read pgs. 122-124), by American journalist Richard Harding Davis, describes the invasion of Belgium by the massive army.

After reading the document I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What were Davis’s impressions of the German army? What forces of nature does Davis use to describe the German army? How are such descriptions appropriate to describe this army? What does Davis mean when he says the German army has “lost the human quality?” What does he describe as the German soldier’s “strongest weapon?” Why? What comparisons does Davis make between the German army and the United States’ army? What intimidation tactics are described in the document? What prediction could one make about German behavior and the nature of this new impending war based on reading this document? Your thoughts…


Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Whapey Awards Season 4 Winners!

For the second season straight, Japan won best government as a result of their last minute shocking appearance in the series. In all, Japan took home 4 awards, including the grand prize of Best Government. The other winners are listed below...

Best Government: Japan

Most Influential Society: Britain

Most Influential Person: Napoleon Bonaparte

Best Leader: Mahmud II

Worst Leader: Empress Dowager Cixi

Best Conflict: Russo-Japanese War

Best Social System: Japan

Best Economic System: Capitalism

Best Labor System: Industrialization

Worst Labor System: Indentured Servitude

Best Invention: Steam Engine

Worst Invention: Factories

Most Influential Writer: Karl Marx

Best Cultural Contribution: Industrialization

Best Movie: Mean Girls (in helping to understand Japan)


Some of these wins were a bit inconsistant (i.e. Best Labor System Industrialization but Worst Invention Factories???). At any rate, get ready and get set, because tomorrow is THE SEASON 5 PREMIERE!

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Test Tomorrow and Whapey Award Deadline REMINDER

If you need to discuss the test, you can do it here. I'm reluctantly unlocking the blog so you can speak back and forth. Reluctantly because I want to keep the ballots hidden for Whapey Awards voting, but that won't be possible in the final stretch unfortunately. That being said, the deadline for voting is at 11:59 pm, and I could use some student volunteers tomorrow to help tally the votes. So far only 43 ballots have been submitted, and that's an incredibly LOW turnout... I hope more start churning in. PLEASE DO NOT COPY AND PASTE OTHER'S BALLOTS AS THEY COME IN THIS EVENING... IF I CATCH THAT YOU WILL NOT HAVE YOUR BALLOT COUNTED, AND YOU WILL NOT GET CREDIT FOR A POST. Cheers!

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Slumdog Millionaire Wins 8 Oscars Including Best Picture! Jai Ho!

Ladies and gents, we have been following the Oscar race all season here on this blog, and tonight is the long awaited event, the Oscar ceremony. You guys are not only well informed regarding history at this point, but because you have a film geek as a teacher, you know exactly who all the front-runners are in tonight's ceremony. All indicators are that Slumdog Millionaire will take home the big prize of Best Picture, and probably a few other awards (it is nominated for 10 total). Look out for the nomination leader, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with 13 nominations, to do well in the technical categories. Finally, look for Kate Winslet to finally win her overdue Oscar for her performance in The Reader. As always, the BBC offers the best analysis of anything news-worthy, including tonight's ceremony. You can click here for their excellent full coverage. Want to fill out your own Oscar ballot? Click here to pull one up, fill it out, and see how you do. I will be updating this blog as the awards start being announced, right around 8:30 pm on ABC.


And the winners are (as they roll in)...


Best Picture- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Director- Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Screenplay- Dustin Lance Black, Milk
Best Adapted Screenplay- Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire
Best Foreign Language Film- Departures
Best Animated Feature Film- Wall-E
Best Actor in a Lead Role- Sean Penn, Milk
Best Actress in a Lead Role- Kate Winslet, The Reader
Best Actor in a Supporting Role- Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
Best Actress in a Supporting Role- Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Best Documentary Feature- Man on Wire
Best Cinematography- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Score- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Song- “Jai Ho”, Slumdog Millionaire
Best Film Editing- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Art Direction- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Costume Design- The Duchess
Best Makeup- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Visual Effects- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Best Sound Mixing- Slumdog Millionaire
Best Sound Editing- The Dark Knight
Best Live Action Short Film- Spielzeugland
Best Documentary Short Subject- Smile Pinki
Best Animated Short Film- La Maison en Petits Cubes

Awards Tally
Slumdog Millionaire- 8
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- 3
The Dark Knight- 2
Milk- 2
Departures- 1
The Duchess- 1
La Maison en Petits Cubes-1
Man on Wire- 1
The Reader- 1
Smile Pinki- 1
Spielzeugland- 1
Vicky Cristina Barcelona- 1
Wall-E-1

So there you have it folks, we close the book on another film year. Was there any doubt that Slumdog Millionaire was going to go all the way? Now it's midnight, so I say good night everyone! Congrats to all the winners!

Friday, February 20, 2009

The Season 5 Preview

Ladies and gentlemen, the Season 5 Premiere, the fifth and final premiere of the fifth and final season arrives on Thursday, February 26th. This series has gone by so fast, it is hard to believe it is already coming to a conclusion. Season 5, though, may just be the most chaotic yet. As I preview Season 5 here today, one must begin to wonder: What will future historians have to say about the last 100 years of human history? How will they interpret the wars, revolutions, economic transformations, new ideologies, technological breakthroughs, demographic trends, cultural changes, and all the other events and developments that took place? What part will recent events such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 play in their accounts? How will they explain the seeming contradiction between humankind's stupendous achievements and abysmal failures? From the perspective of the early twenty-first century, no one can answer questions such as these. Future historians' views of our past will be shaped by events that have not yet occurred and by values and concerns unique to their own era. What seems of great consequence to us, therefore, may be insignificant to them, while developments we barely perceive may be important parts of their stories.

It would be surprising, however, if future historians did not note the importance of the dramatic shift in world relationships that we will witness take place in the middle of the twentieth century. The world of the early 1900s will be a Eurocentric world. Europeans will be the best-educated and wealthiest people on Earth, and a few European states--Great Britain, Germany, Russia (becoming sort-of European), and France, along the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, and a European offshoot, the United States--will be the masters of Africa and much of Asia. When one speaks of Great Powers during this time period, they will all be European states. Despite its new industrial might and a few colonies, the United States will still not be a major player on the world scene yet. After the Second World War, Europe's primacy will end. The Europeans' colonial empires will disintegrate, their paramount role in international relations will shift to the Soviet Union and the United States, and their economic importance will decline in the face of global competition.

Future historians undoubtedly will also highlight the phenomenon of globalization, a word and concept that will come into common usage at the end of the twentieth century to describe the unprecedented scale of integration and interaction that will come to dominate relationships among the world's peoples. Human interaction, of course, is nothing new. Long-distance trade, migration, travel, missionary activity, wars of conquest, and the diffusion of new ideas and technologies all have been part of history for thousands of years. But interaction on a global scale did not begin to increase rapidly until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when Europeans first sailed to Africa, the Americas, and Asia and opened a new era in commerce, migration, and biological exchange.

During the twentieth century, however, breakthroughs in communications and transportation will virtually obliterate the limitations of time and space, and the exchange of goods and ideas among the world's peoples will reach undreamed-of levels. It will become the age of world wars, multinational corporations, global communication networks, the World Wide Web, and thousands of international organizations.

Historians assuredly will also note other developments: the ongoing rush of scientific, medical, and technological discoveries; the spectacular expansion of the world's population (from approximately 1.7 billion in 1900 to 6.7 billion in 2009); the decline of the world's rural population and the growth of cities, best represented by megacities such as Tokyo, Mexico City, São Paulo, and Mumbai; and the emergence at least superficially of a shared global culture, symbolized by the Internet and the ubiquity of McDonald's restaurants, blue jeans, American popular music, and twenty-four-hour cable news networks.

What else historians will say about the twentieth century is open to conjecture. They undoubtedly will take note of inhumanities and cruelties that we will sadly witness in Season 5: its appalling war casualties, its use of torture, and its genocides, not just against Jews in World War II but also against Armenians in World War I, Cambodians in the 1970s, and Bosnians, Kosovars, and Tutsi in the 1990s. Will such developments be described as aberrations or the beginning of a new trend toward brutality and callousness in human relationships? Historians surely will discuss the emergence of over 100 new independent states in Africa and Asia after the demise of colonialism. Will their stories be celebrations of economic and political achievement or tales of failure and disillusionment? They will note that the twentieth century will be marked by signs of both growing religious fervor and indifference; environmental disasters and growing environmental consciousness; and the globalization of culture and the continued appeal of nationalism and ethnic identification.

In looking toward the future, optimists will affirm their faith in progress, holding fast to the dream that reasonable human beings are capable of shaping a future of peace, harmony, and a just sharing of the world's wealth. Pessimists will ponder population projections, inevitable energy shortages, worsening pollution, and perhaps a nuclear winter, and warn of the coming of a new "dark age." However things develop, Season 5 will launch humankind on new paths that will determine its future for years to come. Get ready, get set, and fasten your seat belts for the Season 5 Premiere on Thursday, February 26th!

The Season 4 Whapey Awards

Ok folks, now that season 4 is officially over, it's time for awards season. Once again, this is our opportunity to award the "best" in world history at the end of a season. This is also a great opportunity to reflect critically on content learned. The categories for voting will be listed below, and all you have to do, is nominate your selection in a comment post. Voting closes at 11:59pm ON TUESDAY. We'll tally the votes, and the winner will be announced Wednesday, January 25. If any of you are in need of volunteer hours and would like to come in after school or during 6th lunch on Wednesday to tally votes, I'll be happy to have you. That would be a great help. Happy voting. Here are the categories for season 4...

[NOTE: DO NOT COPY AND PASTE OTHER VOTERS' BALLOTS. YOU MAY ONLY COPY AND PASTE THIS ONE TO FILL IN. VOTE INDEPENDENTLY!]

Best Government:

Most Influential Society:

Most Influential Person:

Best Leader:

Worst Leader:

Best Conflict:

Best Social System:

Best Economic System:

Best Labor System:

Worst Labor System:

Best Invention:

Worst Invention:

Most Influential Writer:

Best Cultural Contribution:

Best Film Set During Season 4 Nominees:
--Lagaan: Once Upon a Time In India
--The Last Samurai
--Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
--Mean Girls
--Out of Africa
--The Twilight Samurai

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Images of the West in Late Tokugawa and Meiji Japan

In the decades after the first Europeans arrived in Japan in 1542, their ideas, dress, weapons, and religion proved attractive to many Japanese. As many as 500,000 Japanese converted to Catholicism, military leaders put European firearms to use in their civil wars, and in the 1580s and 1590s some Japanese showed an interest in European fashion and cuisine. After the Tokugawa suppressed Christianity and implemented the seclusion policy in the seventeenth century, however, knowledge of the West soon came to be limited to the merchants who traded with the Dutch in Nagasaki and a handful of intellectuals who maintained interest in European thought. For most Japanese, memory of the South Sea Barbarians disappeared.

The arrival of Commodore Perry in 1853 and the opening of Japan to foreign trade in 1854 changed this dramatically. Inspired by a mixture of fear, awe, and curiosity, the Japanese developed a deep interest in the West, and a flood of printed material about Europe and the United States appeared in the 1850s and 1860s. Then after the Meiji Restoration of 1868, imitation of the West became a patriotic duty. Employing Western science, technology, military organization, and government practices would make Japan strong and prosperous. Adopting Western fashion, etiquette, grooming habits, architecture, and culture would make the Japanese respected and admired. In the late 1880s, however, a reaction against overzealous Westernization set in. Since then, the Japanese have managed to strike a balance between borrowing from the West what was necessary for their modernization and preserving the essentials of their traditional culture.

The six illustrations I would like you to look at (you can see all six by clicking here), covering the period from the 1850s to the late 1880s, provide insights into changing Japanese views of the West. They also serve as reminders that these changes in attitude underlay the political, military, and economic transformation that made Japan a world power.

The first two illustrations are tile prints that appeared shortly after the arrival of Commodore Perry in 1853. Forerunners of modern newspapers, tile prints were produced quickly and anonymously after newsworthy events and sold for a few cents. The first print depicts one of Perry’s “black ships,” so called because of the dark smoke that belched from their smokestacks. The Japanese text provides information on the ship’s dimensions and the length of its voyage to Japan. The second print depicts Commander Henry Adams, Perry’s second-in-command.

The next illustrations both appeared when the drive to emulate Europeans was fully under way. Illustration three is part of a series of woodblock prints published in the 1880s entitled Self-Made Men Worthy of Emulation. The individual depicted here is Fukuchi Gen’ichiro, a journalist who served as editor-in-chief of Tokyo’s first daily newspaper. He is shown as a war correspondent covering the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877, a rebellion by disgruntled samurai against the new Meiji order that was suppressed by the imperial army. The accompanying text (with an erroneous birthdate) reads:

“Fukuchi Gen’ichiro was born in Nagasaki in 1844. An exceptionally bright child, he could recognize characters at the age of five and had begun to read and write at about the age of seven. He resolved to enter the service of the Shogunate and, upon coming of age, entered the government, in the service of which he traveled three times to Europe. He then entered into a successful business career. In 1874 he became president of the Reporters’ Association. He personally covered the Satsuma Rebellion in the south. Received by the emperor, he respectfully reported his observations to the throne. His style seemed almost supernatural in its logic, force, and lucidity. He is one of the truly great men of Meiji.”

The next illustration appeared in a popular book, written by Kanagaki Robun and published in serial form in the 1870s. Entitled Hiking through the West, it relates the adventures of two Japanese travelers during a trip to London and back. The illustration depicts, from right to left, an “unenlightened man,” dressed in the garb of a samurai, a “half-enlightened man,” and an “enlightened man.”

Even in the years when the Japanese enthusiasm for things Western reached its height, some opposed Japan’s headlong rush to Westernize. Government censorship caused most of these critics to remain silent, but a few managed to get their ideas into print. Cartoonists Honda Kinkichiro and Kobayashi Kyochika were two such individuals. Honda’s cartoons, usually accompanied by English captions and a Japanese text, appeared in the 1870s and 1880s in the weekly humor magazine Marumara Chimbun. His cartoon “Monkey Show Dressing Room” was published in 1879, shortly after Dr. Edward S. Morse introduced Darwin’s theory of evolution in a series of lectures at the newly founded Department of Zoology at Tokyo University. The text reads, “Mr. Morse explains that all human beings were monkeys in the beginning. In the beginning—but even now aren’t we still monkeys? When it comes to Western things we think the red beards [a Japanese nickname for Westerners] are the most skillful at everything.”

Kobayashi, who contributed cartoons to Marumara Chimbun in the 1880s, published his cartoon in the Tokyo Daily News in 1891. It depicts the New Year’s Dance held in Rokumeikan, a pavilion built by the government in 1883 to serve as a venue for fancy-dress balls and other entertainments involving Westerners and Japan’s elite. About the dance floor, dominated by ill-matched Western and Japanese couples, is a sign that reads, “Hands Dance, Feet Stomp, Call Out Hurrah!”

After looking at the six illustrations, I would like you to reflect on and discuss the following: What impression of the West is conveyed by the prints of Perry’s ship and his second-in-command, Commander Adams? What specific details help convey this impression? In Hiking through the West, what are the most significant differences between the three figures? How does the artist convey a sense of the “enlightened man’s” superiority? What is there in the drawing of Fukuchi Gen’ichiro and in the accompanying text that makes him “a man worthy of emulation?” Why do you think the artist chose to depict Fukuchi while he was covering the Satsuma Rebellion? What messages are Honda and Kobayashi attempting to convey about Japan’s campaign to Westernize? Compare and contrast the depiction of Westerners in “Hands Dance…” with the earlier depiction of Commander Adams. What changes and continuities over time do you notice in these illustrations in terms of perceptions of the West? Your thoughts…

Patriotic Duty and Business Success

From the moment they seized power, the Meiji reformers sought ways to modernize Japan’s economy, especially in those industries on which modern military power depended. After a rocky start in the 1870s, Japanese industrialization proceeded rapidly, and by 1900 the nation had become a major economic power through a combination of government subsidies and individual entrepreneurship.

The greatest success story in Japan’s economic transformation was Iwasaki Yataro, the founder of one of the nation’s most powerful business conglomerates, Mitsubishi. Born into a poor farming family, Iwasaki gained a rudimentary education and held several low-level business jobs before he found employment as an official in the service of the aristocratic Tosa family in the mid-1860s. He was given the task of managing and reducing the Tosa domain’s huge debt, which had resulted from massive purchases of firearms and artillery. His policies, which included paying some debtors with counterfeit money, quickly eliminated the domain’s deficit. In 1871, when the domain abandoned its direct ownership of business enterprises, it gave Iwasaki eleven steamships and all the assets connected with its enterprises in the silk, coal, tea, and lumber industries. In return, Iwasaki was expected to pay off some new Tosa debts and provide employment for former samurai. With this to build on, he systematically wiped out foreign and domestic competition and, through a series of shrewd (and frequently cutthroat) business moves, turned Mitsubishi into Japan’s second largest conglomerate, with interests in shipbuilding, mining, banking, insurance, and manufacturing.

Iwasaki wrote a letter that I would like you to read to his employees in 1876 during Mitsubishi’s battle with the British Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company over control of Japanese coastal trade (you can read the letter by clicking here; read #4, pgs. 356-357). He had just cut fares in half but had also reduced wages by a third.

After reading Iwasaki’s letter, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: Why does Iwasaki believe that the Japanese must prevent foreigners from becoming involved in the coastal trade? According to Iwasaki, what is at stake in the competition for control of Japan’s coastal trade? What advantages and disadvantages does Iwasaki’s company have in its rivalry with the Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company? How does Iwasaki attempt to inspire greater dedication and effort from his workers? Your thoughts…

The Meiji Restoration in Japan

Far-reaching changes transformed the lives of the Japanese people during the second half of the 19th century. In 1853-1854, ships from the United States appeared in Edo (Tokyo) harbor and forced the Tokugawa shoguns to end the policy of isolation they had enforced for more than two centuries. For the next 15 years, the country was racked by political turmoil and economic crisis, the latter development a result of Japan’s sudden plunge into the global economy. Finally, in 1867-1868, the daimyo from two of the largest domains, Satsuma and Choshu, joined forces to overthrow the rule of the shoguns in the name of “restoring” the full authority of the emperor.

Having just come to the throne, the emperor chose the name Meiji (Enlightened Rule) for his reign, which lasted until 1912. As he was in his mid-teens and too young to lead the Japanese state, a coalition of mostly younger samurai, many of who came from Satsuma and Choshu, quickly grasped the levers of power and began to rule on behalf of the “restored” Meiji emperor. In an astonishing turnabout, the new leaders of the country dismantled the essentials of the Tokugawa system—ending the privileges of the daimyo and the samurai—and launched Japan on a course of thoroughgoing modernization.

Learning much from study missions to the United States, Western Europe, and Russia, the Meiji oligarchs established a modern system of banking, constructed a railway system, organized a national army and navy, founded a Western-style system of education, and in 1889 put in place a system of constitutional rule. Two brief and victorious wars, against China in 1894-1895, and against Russia 10 years later, demonstrated that Japan was now a major force in international relations. No other country outside the West so transformed itself in the 19th century.

How do the documents I have listed below illuminate important aspects of Meiji Restoration, suggesting that there were both major achievements and some significant new problems?

A Gentleman's Five Pleasures (read #20)
The Charter Oath, 1868 (read #18)
Okubo Toshimichi: On the Role of the State in Industrialization, 1874 (read #10, pgs. 321-322)
Farmers, Silk Workers, and Miners During Industrialization
Yamagata Aritomo: A Letter on Japanese Foreign Policy, August 1914

After reading the five documents, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: How does the excerpt from Sakuma Shozan (“A Gentlemen’s Five Pleasures”) illustrate leading ideas of the Meiji Restoration? In what ways did the Charter Oath break with Tokugawa tradition? Do you see any continuities? Why did Okubo favor the development of modern industries? What did he think the government should do to stimulate the process of industrialization? What similarities and differences did Okubo see between Japan and England? What themes do you see in the passages on working conditions in Meiji-era factories and mines? How do the Japanese conditions compare with those in England during the long 19th century? What foreign policy issues did Yamagata think were most important? What were Japan’s objectives regarding China and the United States? How does Yamagata’s letter suggest some of the causes of World War II? What characteristics of Japanese life during the Tokugawa period may have contributed to the success of the Meiji Restoration? How do the results of the Meiji Restoration compare to those of the French Revolution? What is the difference between a restoration and a revolution? Why was Japan the only country outside the West to experience modernization in the 19th century? Your thoughts…

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

It's Coming... THE SEASON FOUR FINALE IS TOMORROW!

A Rising Sun is Emerging...
The World May Never Be the Same...
Tomorrow, The SEASON FOUR FINALE...
A Season Finale That Will Never Be Forgotton...

The Basic Tenets of Leninism

One of the most iconic revolutionaries in world history was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known by his adopted revolutionary name, Lenin. The son of a government official, Lenin dedicated himself to revolution after the government executed his brother for plotting the assassination of Tsar Alexander III. After joining the Marxist-inspired Social-Democratic Party, founded in 1898, in 1903 he became the leader of the "majority men," or Bolsheviks, who, in opposition to the "minority men," or Mensheviks, demanded highly centralized party leadership, noncooperation with bourgeois liberals, and single-minded devotion to revolution.

Lenin described his ideas about revolutionary tactics in 1902 in a pamphlet entitled "What Is to Be Done?" (You can read excerpts from it by clicking here). It was directed against ideological enemies Lenin called "Economists," Marxists who believed that because Russia had just begun to industrialize, it was not ready for socialism. Social-Democrats, the Economists believed, should seek short-term economic gains for workers rather than revolution. Published in Germany, smuggled into Russia, and read by thousands of Social-Democrats, "What Is to Be Done?" established Lenin as a major party theoretician and a man to be reckoned within the Social-Democratic Party. It marked the beginning of that distinctive variant of Marxism known as Leninism.

After reading excerpts from the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: According to Lenin, how does the "critical Marxism" of men such as Bernstein endanger the socialist movement? In Lenin's view how are the goals and purposes of trade unionism similar to and different from those of the Social-Democratic Party? Why, according to Lenin, have the workers been unable to develop true revolutionary consciousness? What does he believe must be done to change this? What advantages does Lenin see in restricting the party to a small corps of dedicated revolutionaries? What kinds of activities will these professional revolutionaries carry on to further the cause of revolution? Compare and contrast the views of Lenin and Marx on the following topics: revolution, the working class, and the role of the party? Your thoughts...

Russian Peasants: Serfdom and Emancipation

More than most Eurasian societies, Russia long remained a land of small cities with limited manufacturing. Not only a majority, but a vast majority of its people were peasants well into the 19th century. Numbers alone, however, do not account for the omnipresence of peasant issues in Russian history. From a once-held position of substantial freedom and control of village lands, Russian peasants had been subjected to increasingly rigorous serfdom—by state or by noble landlords—from the 15th century onward. Their trend thus reversed that of Western Europe, where serfdom on the whole became lighter over time. The Russian economy relied on agricultural exports forced from peasant labor on the large estates, and Russian politics and society, which traded noble control over their peasants for docility to the Russian tsar, relied heavily on the subjection of the serfs.

Yet the peasants’ condition created increasingly visible problems. It violated standards of justice felt keenly by many Russians, including those open to Western ideas during the 18th and 19th centuries. Serfs rioted frequently, for peasants were quite aware of their own servitude. Furthermore, tight control of peasant labor limited Russia’s economic flexibility, making it hard to recruit urban labor and, at least in the eyes of some observers, reducing productivity on the land as well. Finally, prodded by its loss in the Crimean War, the Russian government took the step of emancipation, ending serfdom while trying to preserve the noble-dominated social hierarchy. This move redefined the peasant question but did not remove it.

The documents I would like you to read stem from two sources. The first document is an account by an early Russian intellectual, Alexander Radishchev, who wrote about the peasants’ condition in the book A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow (1790), which was repressed by the government until 1905. His account reveals peasants’ suffering and reactions and also the reformist zeal of a segment of the educated upper class (you can read it by clicking here; just read under the heading "Lyubani"). The second document presents excerpts from the emancipation decree of 1861 (you can read it by clicking here). They reveal how a new tsar, Alexander II, tried to juggle reform interests with noble resistance. The document invites appraisal in terms of how much was changed and why peasants were so widely disappointed with the results.

After reading both documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are Radishchev’s main arguments against serfdom? Where did he derive his criteria for judgment? What kind of society would he find preferable to Russia’s? What aspects of serfdom persisted from earlier decades? Was the emancipation of the serfs a radical move? Why did it provoke renewed discontent among the peasants? How did the arguments and implementation relate to earlier critiques by Westernizers like Radishchev? What does the emancipation document suggest about the flexibility of Russia’s authoritarian politic structure? Do these two documents provide clues as to why Russia encountered less social protest than Western Europe did during the first half of the 19th century, but more fundamental protest movements by the century’s end? How does Russian Emancipation compare with the French Revolution's attack on manorialism? Your thoughts…

The Russian Frontier Society

Russia must be viewed from several angles during the early modern and modern periods, but one of them involves the twin themes of expansion and frontier operations. Expansion occurred in several directions—southward toward the Black Sea and Central Asia, west into east-central Europe, and of course eastward ultimately to the Pacific. Expansion placed Russia on the borders of several other major societies, including the Ottoman Empire and China. It also provided Russia with a large number of minority populations but also new expanses of land that could be settle by Russian (and other Slavic) migrants themselves. Frontier conditions developed in Siberia and other parts of Russian Asia even as the government—in principle an autocratic empire—struggled to extend controls. Minority populations pursued different kinds of economies and adhered to various religions, both local and otherwise.

Frontier societies often leave only scattered records, because the settlers themselves are preoccupied with their struggle to establish themselves and local populations leave scant written evidence. One of the sources of information about such societies, then, comes from traveler accounts. The document I would like you to read (you can by clicking here) comes from the account of an American traveler, John Ledyard, who journeyed through Russia and Siberia in 1787-1788. His materials offer insights into the Russian aspect of this new eastern frontier, and into the local Asiatic populations—which he, like many Russians at the time, lumped into the general category of Tatars—as well. He does not discuss government arrangements elaborately, but his implications are intriguing—suggesting in fact that there was not much government to discuss. He is quite aware of the possibility of comparing Russian involvement with minority peoples and with frontier conditions to situations in other societies, particularly the new United States and its native populations. While obviously not fond of Russians themselves, he suggests some of the differences between them and the natives, and some aspects of the interrelationships of the frontier.

All traveler accounts that go beyond the barebones reveal much about the travelers themselves, and their own preconceptions. In this case, some of Ledyard’s interpretive categories reflect more broadly on American ideas about peoples, and races, in the late 18th and 19th centuries.

John Ledyard was in some senses the first American explorer. Born in Connecticut and reasonably well schooled, he lacked an inheritance and spent some time finding a vocation. At one point he worked with American Natives at Dartmouth College, which provided some basis for judging the natives he encountered in Siberia. Later he traveled with the British explorer Captain Cook, and was the first American to encounter Russians on the Pacific. He trip through Russia was designed to reach the American northwest via Siberia, but it failed. Later he explored Africa and died on this trip. He published several travel accounts, including his description of the Siberia venture, and obviously informed them with his own point of view.

In the events since 1989, Russia has lost some of its former empire, but it still stretches through 12 time zones from the Pacific well into Europe. Asian Russia remains a vital part of the country, and the minority peoples whom Ledyard describes still operate in their homelands, interacting with Russians and the Russian government in complex ways.

After reading Ledyard’s account, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What were the most important features of the local populations in Siberia? What were some of the differences among the native groups? What were some of the differences between Russians and native peoples in Siberia? How did Russians and natives interact on the frontier? What were some of the key differences between Russian-native interactions on the eastern frontier and those that occurred between Americans and natives in the American west? What were the leading similarities? How does Ledyard describe the political conditions and government policies on the frontier? Is his characterization typical of frontier settings, or were there distinctive Russian features? What kinds of biases and preconceptions does Ledyard display? In your opinion, how much do these biases distort his account? How does he compare, as an observer, to other traveler accounts in other places and periods in world history? What was the role of Russian Asian expansion and its Asian frontier in world history from the 18th century to the present? Your thoughts…

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

A Revolutionary Formula for China’s Revival

By 1900 the prognosis for the Qing Dynasty had deteriorated from poor to critical. It had survived massive peasant revolts, military defeats at the hands of the British, French, and Japanese, and a series of one-sided treaties that made a mockery of China’s self-image as the world’s greatest power. But the government was doing little more than surviving. In 1898, a desperate attempt to revamp government, encourage education, promote agriculture and commerce, and strengthen the armed forces resulted in a flurry of decrees from the Guangxu emperor during the period known as the One Hundred Days’ Reforms. The emperor’s efforts, however, were scuttled by court reactionaries led by the Empress Dowager Cixi. Cixi then lent her support to the anti-foreign secret societies known as the Boxers, who in 1899 went on a rampage against foreigners and Chinese Christians and in 1900 besieged the foreign embassies in Beijing. The Boxer Rebellion was suppressed by a multi-national force, and China was forced to accept another humiliating treaty—one that included an indemnity of $333 million. Support for the government virtually disappeared, and many intellectuals, students, generals, secret society members, and Chinese living abroad began plotting the downfall of the Qing.

The leading revolutionary was Sun Yat-sen, a man far different from previous Chinese reformers. Born to a poor rural family near Guangzhou, Sun was educated in Hawaiian and Chinese missionary schools and developed a worldview more Western than Confucian. Galled by China’s military impotence and Qing ineptitude, in 1894 he founded the secret Revive China Society, which in 1895 laid plans to overthrow the government. The plot was uncovered, and Sun was forced into exile. After sixteen years of traveling, planning, writing, and organizing, his hopes for radical change were realized when the revolution that ended the Qing era broke out in 1911.

On his return to China from the United States, he was elected provisional president of the United Provinces of China on December 30, 1911. Sun’s moment of glory was short-lived. Without an armed force or an organized political party to back him up, Sun resigned as president in 1912 in favor of the military strongman Yuan Shikai, who one year later sent Sun into exile as part of his plan to establish a dictatorship. Sun returned to Guangzhou in 1917 and attempted to establish a parliamentary government, but by then China had descended into the chaos of warlord rule. When Sun died in 1925, the prospects of national unity and orderly government for China still seemed dim.

In the document I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here), Sun presents an early formulation of his “three people’s principles,” which served as the ideology of the United League, and organization he founded in 1905 in Tokyo that combined members of Chinese secret societies, overseas Chinese groups, and Chinese students in Japan. When the United League joined several other groups to form the Guomindang, or Nationalist, party in 1912, Sun’s three principles provided the platform for the new party. Sun presented the following analysis of his three principles in a speech to the United League in Tokyo in 1906 to help celebrate the first anniversary of the League’s publication, Min Pao (The People’s Journal).

After you have read excerpts from Sun’s speech, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What is meant by Sun’s principle of nationalism? Against whom are his nationalist sentiments directed? How is his principle of nationalism linked to the principle of democracy? What does he mean by the principle of democracy, and why does he feel it is so important to the future of China? What, according to Sun, have been the good and bad effects of “the advances of civilization?” Why have the benefits of these advances been so poorly distributed? Briefly describe Sun’s “land valuation procedure” and its relation to the principle of livelihood. What are its strengths and weaknesses? What is Sun’s attitude toward the West? How and in what ways will the future government and society of China be superior to those of the West? To what extent do they draw on traditional Chinese thought and practice? Your thoughts…

Chinese Reform Movements

During the half-century following the Opium War the emperors of the Qing dynasty faced a series of increasingly grave challenges. In the 1850s and 1860s several huge peasant uprisings convulsed much of the country. The largest of these upheavals, the Taiping Rebellion, was inspired by a convert to Christianity who preached a doctrine of communal egalitarianism and believed he was the brother of Jesus. Imperial authorities were successful in suppressing the Taipings and the other rebels, but the fighting caused more than 20 million deaths. No other country in the 19th-century world experienced a comparable catastrophe (although the severe famines in India late in the century came close).

The emperors also had to cope with relentless pressures from Western Europeans, Russians, and Americans, all of whom sought increased commercial advantages in China. From the 1840s onward, the growing disparity between the power of the Western states and China forced the emperors to agree to a steady increase in the number of “treaty ports,” i.e. Chinese cities largely controlled by western diplomats and merchants. In the treaty ports, whose very existence was deeply offensive to China’s Confucian officials, conflict between arrogant Westerners and Chinese was endemic.

In 1894-1895, as living standards for many Chinese spiraled downward and as opium addiction continued to spread, China’s leaders confronted a new source of humiliation when the military leadership in Meiji Japan seized upon political unrest in Korea, a longtime vassal state of China, as a pretext for imperialist expansion. A brief war between China and Japan ensued. Well-led, well-trained, and well-equipped Japanese soldiers quickly defeated their Chinese adversaries. The Chinese surrendered and agreed to the terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which gave control of Korea to Japan and also ceded the island of Formosa (Taiwan) to the Japanese.

Buffeted by these repeated shocks, the Chinese scrambled for an effective response. In the aftermath of the Opium War, a few officials had recommended that Chinese scholars begin to study western science and technology and that the government take the lead in establishing arsenals for the manufacture of Western-style weapons. Policies along these lines were subsequently implemented, but there was no basic reform of the Chinese government, and no Chinese counterpart to the reforms introduced by the leaders of the Meiji Restoration in Japan (more on that later in the week). However, following China’s defeat by Japan in 1894-1895, pleas by officials for thorough reform increased sharply.

The documents that I would like you to read come from the period of deep crisis triggered by the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, a crisis that culminated in the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911-1912. The documents include excerpts from the writings of Kang Yuwei (including a "Statement for the 'Society for the Study of Self-Strenthening'" [Doc 41, pgs. 152-154]and "Memorial to the Emperor" [pgs. 269-270]) and Ling Qichao (you can click here for that document; read pgs. 289-293 starting under the heading "The Meaning of 'Renewing the People'"), two of the most influential reformers. The fourth document contains key passages from the 1901 reform decree issued by the Empress Dowager Cixi (you can read it by clicking here, pgs. 285-287), the de facto head of state for most of the period from the 1860s to 1908. How did Chinese leaders respond to the problems they faced at the end of the 19th century? Why did they fail?

Additionally, after reading all four documents, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: What problems were the founding of the “Society for the Study of Self-Strengthening” intended to solve? How were these problems to be solved? To whom was this appeal directed? In his memorial to the emperor, what was Kang Yuwei’s rationale for reform? What foreign models did he reject? What foreign models did he think were appropriate for China? What did Liang Qichao mean by “renewing the people?” In what ways did this idea represent a new trend in the reform movement? How did “renewing the people” compare with “self-strengthening?” How do you explain the change? Was Liang Qichao more of a reformer or a revolutionary? How do you explain the strength of Confucian teachings in China around 1900, 2,500 years after they had first been articulated? Why did the attempts to reform and preserve the Qing dynasty fail? Your thoughts…

The Plight of the Emperor’s Subjects

Zeng Guofan was one of nineteenth-century China’s truly impressive statesmen. Born into a farm family in the province of Hunan, Zeng received a Confucian education and passed the highest civil service examination at age twenty-eight. As a government official, his greatest achievement was the organization and leadership of a potent military force, the Xiang Army, which was instrumental in suppressing the Taiping Rebellion, a massive peasant revolt that raged through China between 1850 and 1864. Knowing well the problems of the regime, especially the cause of unrest among the peasantry, Zeng drew up a memorandum that I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here) on February 7, 1852, for Emperor Xianfeng. It provides a clear and balanced assessment of China’s problems at midcentury.

After reading the memorandum, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: According to Zeng, what is the key to keeping China peaceful and secure? Which aspects of the government’s tax policies does Zeng deplore? How, according to Zeng, does the behavior of local officials, soldiers, and magistrates affect the lives of the Chinese people? Zeng states at the end of his memorandum that he will draft a plan to address the shortcomings of the tax system. What do you guess he will propose? How does Zeng propose to remedy the problem of corruption? Does his solution have a reasonable chance of success? Why or why not? Your thoughts…

The Opium War: China and the West

During most of the Ming dynasty and the first half of the Qing dynasty, Chinese emperors presided over a prosperous and orderly society. Jesuit missionaries to the Qing court, who had some success in winning converts, sent numerous letters to colleagues in Europe that were strongly positive about what they observed. Leaders of the European Enlightenment such as Voltaire based their views of China on the Jesuit reports and praised the Chinese political system for its stability and reasonableness.

Around 1800, however, much began to go wrong in China. By this date the Chinese population, which had been growing rapidly for the past three centuries, began to press hard against the available food supply. In the past, the Chinese had been among the world’s most innovative people with regard to technology, but for reasons that are poorly understood, this was no longer the case. Living standards in China, which scholars think were roughly comparable to those in Europe up to 1800, began to plummet. In addition, Chinese emperors after 1800 were less competent than those who had reigned during the first half of the Qing period.

The emperors’ problems were exacerbated by the actions of the British East India Company and other Western traders who began to ship huge quantities of opium to China around 1800. Attempts by the Qing authorities to halt the trade in opium (which was grown in British-controlled India) proved ineffective, and addiction to the drug began to spread. In response, Emperor Daoguang dispatched one of his most highly regarded officials, Lin Zexu, to Canton (present-day Guangzhou) in 1839 to find a remedy. It was in this context that Lin addressed his famous letter to Queen Victoria. Lin also blockaded Canton harbor and had a large quantity of opium seized and destroyed. The British responded by attacking Canton and several other Chinese ports. Overwhelmed, the Chinese surrendered. By the terms of the 1842 Treaty of Nanjing, the Chinese were forced to open several ports to trade, to cede the island of Hong Kong, to grant extraterritoriality to British subjects residing in China, and to make other significant concessions (which were soon extended to other Western governments).

The two letters that I would like you to read illustrate the contrast in Chinese and British thinking about the conflict over opium smuggling. How does Lin’s letter (that you can read by clicking here; Doc 1, pgs. 24-28)—which may have never have reached its destination—reveal how the Qing authorities saw the dispute, while also suggesting reasons why the Chinese were easily defeated? How does the letter from Lord Palmerston (you can read that letter by clicking here), the British Foreign Secretary, shed light on the perspective of the British?

After reading the letters, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What were Lin’s objections to the opium trade? What was his solution to the problem of opium consumption in China? Was he a Confucian? How well informed was Lin about England and about Chinese relations with England? What does Lin’s letter suggest about the traditional goals of China’s leaders in international relations? What changes in the 19th-century world made the attainment of these aims problematic? How does Palmerston’s letter differ from Lin’s? Are there any similarities? Was there any basis for compromise between the two governments? Were Lin and Palmerston nationalists? Why did the use of opium spread in China during the 19th century? How did the Chinese response to the growth of European wealth and power compare with those of Russia in Season 3 and the Ottoman Empire in Season 4? Your thoughts…

Monday, February 16, 2009

The Beginnings of Arab Nationalism

Of all the non-Turkish ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs were the sultan’s least troublesome during the nineteenth century. Attached to the Ottoman state through deeply ingrained habits of loyalty and the perception of the sultan/caliph as protector of the Islamic community, or umma, the Arabs, unlike the Balkan Christians, Kurds, and Armenians, experienced no surge of nationalism and made no demands for independence or greater autonomy. This changed in the years directly preceding the outbreak of World War I, when Arab nationalism suddenly intensified. It gained strength during the Arab revolt against the Ottomans in World War I and has continued to be a significant part of the region’s politics to the present day.

Although Arab nationalism became a political force only on the eve of World War I, its roots can be traced back to the nineteenth century, when publications of Arabic language printing houses and the establishment of schools and universities in major Arab cities under the auspices of French Jesuit and American Protestant missionaries sparked renewed interest in Arab history and literature. These same missionary schools also introduced Arab students to Western science and Western ideas of constitutionalism and liberalism. Continued Ottoman misrule and military losses in the Balkans also encouraged the growth of Arab consciousness. The Ottoman Empire, some suggested, was no longer capable of defending the interests of Islam, and a few went further to suggest that the Islamic community would continue to decline until its founders and natural leaders, the Arabs, regained control.

Arab discontent intensified after the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. Although many Arabs had supported the Young Turks’ political agenda before the revolution, they turned against the new regime after it replaced Arab officials with Turks, stripped many old Arab families of their local authority, mandated the use of Turkish throughout the empire, and encouraged the further secularization of education and the law. Arab political organizations formed in Cairo, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and Aleppo, with some advocating greater Arab autonomy within the empire, and others demanding Arab independence.

Independence clearly was the goal of the author or authors of the “announcement” to the Arabs that I would like you to read (you can read it by clicking here), which appeared in Cairo in the summer of 1914. It may have been written by a supporter of Major Aziz Ali-al-Misri, a decorated Arab officer in the Ottoman Army and founder of the Covenant, an organization of Arab officers dedicated to Arab independence. Arrested and condemned to death by Ottoman officials in early 1914, he was released later in the year and allowed to go to Cairo as a result of foreign pressure and public outcry among the Arabs.

After reading the document, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: The author’s nationalism is directed against both the Turks and the West. What, specifically, are his views of each? Does he have a deeper aversion for the Turks or for the Western nations? Why? In the view of the author, what lessons can the Arabs learn from the Armenians? How does the author define “Arab?” What role does religion play in connection with the author’s nationalism? How committed is he to Islam? What are the author’s goals for the Arab people? How does he believe these goals can be attained? Your thoughts…

Crisis and Reform in the Ottoman Empire

For most of the long 19th century, the sultans of the Ottoman Empire sought to reform the institutions of their extensive and diverse realm in order to stave off the growing threat of European and Russian pressures. The sultans had known since 1683, when a coalition of European armies forced the Turks to give up their second siege of Vienna and then pushed them south toward the Balkans, that Ottoman military strength had declined from its peak at the time of Suleiman. Additional defeats at the hands of European and Russian forces during the 18th century indicated that the “gunpowder gap” between the Turks and their longtime adversaries to the north and west was widening.

For the Ottoman leaders, the ominous trend in military affairs was confirmed in the most shocking way by the French invasion and occupation of Egypt in 1798. Although essentially self-governing under the Mamluk dynasty, Egypt had been a part of the Ottoman Empire for three centuries. The ease with which Napoleon Bonaparte and his soldiers took charge in Egypt—even though the British forced them to leave a few years later—registered as a genuine disaster to the Ottomans. As French policy in Egypt unfolded in the summer of 1798, it became clear to at least some of the Ottomans, that the “great divergence” between the West and the Islamic Middle East was not limited to military matters but that it also included political, economic, and cultural factors.

The response of the sultans and their advisers to the French invasion was in many ways enlightened, if ultimately inadequate. Selim III (reigned 1789-1807) tried to introduce changes in the military and in the system of imperial administration, but could not overcome resistance by powerful vested interests, especially the now-corrupt Janissary corps. His nephew and successor, Mahmud II (reigned 1808-1839) accelerated the reform effort and was able to abolish the Janissaries, establish a small number of secular schools, and reduce the role of Muslim judges (qadis) in the judicial system.

Under the leadership of Mahmud’s two sons, Abdul Mejid (reigned 1839-1861) and Abdul Aziz (reigned 1861-1876), the movement for reform, now known as Tanzimat (“reorganization”), became more sweeping. The Ottomans expanded the number of secular schools, issued modern law codes, and sponsored the construction of factories, railways, and steamships. When Sultan Abdul Hamid II (reigned 1876-1909) agreed to a constitution providing for a parliament, the reform movement seemed to be entering a new stage, one that might include the establishment of liberal political institutions.

But Abdul Hamid II dismissed the parliament soon after it convened, having become fearful that the process of reform was going too far. He then set aside the new constitution, allied himself with the conservative ulama (Islamic scholars), and governed autocratically during the remaining years of his reign. Although reform did not end entirely, the era of the Tanzimat movement was now over. One of the most significant efforts at reform undertaken by a non-Western elite in the 19th century had fallen short of its goal of full modernization.

In the first document I would like you to read (you can read them all by clicking here), the Ottoman Egyptian historian Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti expresses his admiration for the research institute, known as the Institute of Egypt, the French established in Cairo in 1798. Jabarti’s reaction to the French is important because he was one of the most learned scholars of his time in the Middle East. The second and third documents illustrate basic ideas of the Tanzimat movement as expressed in two key imperial rescripts (decrees) issued by Sultan Abdul Mejid. How do these documents clarify the challenges facing the Ottoman reformers?

After you have finished reading the documents, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What impressed Jabarti about the French scholars and scientists in Cairo? What do his reactions suggest about the relationship of Middle Eastern scholars to European developments such as the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment? What does the establishment of the Institute of Egypt suggest about the relationship between the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, and about the impact of the French Revolution on the Middle East? According to the two Ottoman decrees, what problems were most worrisome to the Turkish authorities—political, economic, or religious? What remedies did the sultans propose? Based on your reading of the decrees, which groups in the Ottoman Empire would have been most receptive to the reforms? What groups would have been hostile to them? What implications did the Tanzimat movement have for the role of Islam in the Ottoman lands? Is there a conflict between the teachings of Islam and the desire to be modern? How did the Ottoman attempts at reform compare with similar efforts in Russia in Season 3? What circumstances made the Ottoman situation distinctive? Your thoughts…

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Next Week is Registration

Folks, next week (Wed and Thurs) is registration week for social studies. I've talked with all of you except for you guys in 1st and 3rd periods. Please do me a favor if we haven't talked yet... please EMAIL ME (a.k.a. don't post this to the blog) your desired classes for next year. My assumption is that most of you will take AP US next year, but please confirm this with me. Also if you are interested in taking either AP Psychology, Psychology/Sociology, or Controversial Issues/Philosophy, please let me know so I can sign you up for those classes. Next week is Societies at a Crossroads week, so it's a big week, and we won't have time to talk about this during class, so PLEASE EMAIL ON THIS IMMEDIATELY if we haven't yet talked (THAT WOULD BE EVERYONE IN 1ST AND 3RD PERIODS). Thanks.

Unit 10 Test Tomorrow

Feel free to discuss test issues here... the blog is open for business...

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

The Sting of Racism in World History

If you have been reading the blog closely since the Season 4 Premiere, you may have noticed a new and significant theme in some writers, i.e. the attention given to perceived racial differences and hierarchies. Rudyard Kipling’s poem, "The White Man's Burden", first published in 1899 in a leading American magazine, is one of the best known illustrations of the late 19th century trend toward racialized thinking in England and the United States. On this same blog, the documents by the English soldier F. D. Lugard and the French Prime Minister Jules Ferry, both written somewhat earlier than the Kipling poem, suggest a context in which the existence of racial hierarchies was taken for granted by many Europeans and Americans. Also noteworthy in documents from around 1900 is the use of racial categories by Kang Youwei, a Chinese reformer of the 1890s, and by Yamagata Aritomo, a Japanese military leader (you’ll be reading both of these documents next week).

The documents I would like you to read now illustrate the rise of racism in the late 19th century by drawing on the memories of two influential writers and political activists who came of age in the 1890s, W. E. B. Du Bois and Mohandas K. Gandhi. Du Bois grew up in a small town in western Massachusetts, earned a Ph.D. in history from Harvard (becoming the first African American to do so), wrote numerous scholarly works of history and sociology, was one of the founders of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), and had a long career as a writer and activist on behalf of racial and social equality in the United States and internationally. The document I would like you to read from Du Bois (you can read it by clicking here) centers on a memory from his childhood and is taken from his classic collection of essays, The Souls of Black Folk, in which he wrote that “the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color-line.” Mohandas Gandhi, later called Mahatma (“Great Soul”), was born to a wealthy Hindu family in western India. After completing legal studies in London, he decided to practice law in South Africa, then a British colony with a large Indian expatriate community. The document I would like you to read by Gandhi comes from his autobiography (you can read excerpts from it by clicking here; please read pgs. 111-115), first published in the 1920s, and recalls his introduction to racial prejudice in South Africa shortly after his arrival there in 1893. How do these two documents help one to understand the growing importance of racism in the late 19th century world?

After reading the documents, I would like you all to think about and discuss the following: What did Du Bois mean by “twoness?” How did Gandhi respond to the insults and mistreatment he received in South Africa? What political, economic, and cultural developments explain the rise of racism in the 19th century world? What was the connection between American racism and European discussions of imperialism? To what extent was Du Bois correct about the importance of the “color-line” in the 20th century? What is a race? What has happened to racism in world history since the early 20th century? Your thoughts…

For 1st Period ONLY- Operation SCRAP Donations are Actually Due THURSDAY

Folks in 1st period, I apologize that I read the email sent to me wrong, all donations listed on my board are due on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH. You all made the pledge to donate all of these items, so the pledge must be kept. Between tomorrow and Thursday, all of the following items must be brought in...

Tote bag (recycling bags from the grocery store) (3)
Pencils (12)
Pens (6)
Markers (3 small boxes)
Colored pencils (3 small boxes)
Erasers (6)
Glue stick (3)
Spiral notebook (3)
Pack of notebook paper (3)

I'll have a box under the list on my board tomorrow. As you drop supplies, please adjust the number of that supply still needed on the board. Thanks.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine

Victory in the Spanish-American War thrust the United States into the new position of world power, but problems in the Western Hemisphere attracted American interests. Many Caribbean countries were plagued with political instability, and violent revolutions broke out. Compounding the problem was the poor financial state of these countries. Concerned with stability in the region, and wary that hostile foreign powers might use military force to collect debts from these countries and establish a presence in the hemisphere, President Theodore Roosevelt intervened in the domestic affairs of neighboring countries to provide stability and order. This intervention also created investment opportunities for American bankers and businessmen. Such shortsighted activities became a pattern and helped create a legacy of distrust between Latin American nations and the United States. In his 1904 annual message to Congress (that you can read excerpts from by clicking here), Roosevelt offered an explanation for intervention in his famous “corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.

After you have read the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: According to Roosevelt, for what reasons would the United States intervene in a Caribbean basin country’s affairs? What are the potential problems of becoming an “international police power?” In what instances would the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine be used? Your thoughts…